Supreme Court Flags Long Submissions In S.34/37 Arbitration Act Proceedings, Says Timelimit Needs To Be Imposed

On April 21, the Supreme Court expressed its displeasure over the prolonged arguments and submissions made by members of the Bar in arbitration proceedings under Sections 34 and 37 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996.The Court noted that excessively long oral submissions force judges to invest significant time in reviewing extended arguments, often supported by a large volume of case law, regardless of their relevance. This practice, particularly in high-stakes matters, leads to...

Arbitral Tribunal Can Proceed Against Party Though They Weren't Served With S.21 Notice Or Made Party In S.11 Application : Supreme Court

The Supreme Court recently observed that not being served with the notice invoking arbitration under Section 21 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, and not being made a party in the Section 11 application (for appointment of arbitrator), are not sufficient grounds to hold that a person cannot be made party to arbitral proceedings. "A notice invoking arbitration under Section 21 of the ACA is mandatory...and it is a prerequisite to filing an application under Section 11. However, merely...

Supreme Court Holds Chandigarh Authorities Liable For Delay In Film City Project, Directs Refund Of 47.75 Crores To Successful Bidder

In a recent judgment, the Supreme Court largely upheld an arbitral award passed in favor of a company engaged by the Chandigarh Administration to establish a Multimedia-cum-Film City in the Union Territory, holding the authorities liable to refund a forfeited bid amount of Rs.47.75 crores.A bench of Justices BV Nagarathna and Satish Chandra Sharma delivered the verdict, being of the view that the Punjab and Haryana High Court wrongly set aside the arbitral award.It opined that though time was of...

S. 34(3) Arbitration Act | Application Filed On Next Working Day After 90 Day Period Is Within Limitation : Supreme Court

The Supreme Court held that the three-month limitation period under Section 34(3) of the Arbitration & Conciliation Act, 1996 (“Arbitration Act”) for challenging an arbitral award should not be rigidly interpreted as exactly 90 days, rather it should be interpreted as three calendar months. The Court upheld the filing of an application under Section 34 of the Arbitration Act on 11.07.2022 to set aside an arbitral award passed on 09.04.2022, despite it being beyond the 90-day period. It...

International Commercial Arbitration | How To Determine Law Governing Arbitration Agreement? Supreme Court Discusses Tests

In a significant judgment relating to International Commercial Arbitration, the Supreme Court today (March 18) ruled that in the absence of an express law governing the arbitration agreement, the applicable law should be determined based on the parties' intentions, with a strong presumption in favor of the law governing the main contract (lex contractus). The bench comprising Chief Justice Sanjiv Khanna, Justice Sanjay Kumar, and Justice KV Viswanathan heard the case where the plea was made for...

Arbitration Agreement Enforceable Against Legal Representatives Of Deceased Party : Supreme Court

The Supreme Court has reiterated that an arbitration agreement is enforceable against the legal representatives of a deceased partner of a partnership firm."An arbitration agreement does not cease to exist on the death of any party and the arbitration agreement can be enforced by or against the legal representatives of the deceased," the Court stated, referring to the judgment in Ravi Prakash Goel v. Chandra Prakash Goel & Anr., reported in (2008) 13 SCC 667.The bench comprising Justice JB...

'Oral Undertaking Falls Within Scope Of Arbitration Clause' : Supreme Court Upholds Award Against Husband For Operation In Wife's Demat Account

The Supreme Court today (February 10) held that an oral contract undertaking joint and several liability falls within the scope of an arbitration clause.Holding so , the Court affirmed an arbitral award against a husband, finding him jointly liable for the award due to a debit balance in a joint demat account registered in his wife's name.The Court rejected the contention that the husband's liability constituted a "private transaction" beyond the scope of arbitration. Instead, it held that...

Supreme Court Reiterates Narrow Scope Of Interference Under Section 37 Arbitration Act

The Supreme Court reiterated that in appeal under Section 37 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, the Court has a narrower scope to review the arbitral award if the award has already been upheld under Section 34 (application for setting aside arbitral awards). Reliance was placed on the recent decision in Larsen Air Conditioning and Refrigeration Company vs Union of India, wherein the Court had said:“The limited and extremely circumscribed jurisdiction of the court under Section 34 of the...

Arbitration Act | Appellate Courts Can't Reassess Awards, Must Limit Enquiry On Public Policy Breach : Supreme Court

The Supreme Court reaffirmed that arbitral awards should only be interfered with in cases of perversity, violation of public policy, or patent illegality. It emphasized that appellate courts cannot reassess the merits of awards and must limit their inquiry to whether the award breaches Section 34(2)(b)(ii) of the Arbitration Act i.e., if the award is against the public policy of India.The bench comprising Justices Abhay S Oka and Ujjal Bhuyan was hearing the case where the dispute arose...

S. 16 Arbitration Act | Challenge To Arbitral Tribunal's Jurisdiction Impermissible After Submitting Statement Of Defence : Supreme Court

The Supreme Court affirmed the principle that the jurisdiction of the arbitral tribunal cannot be challenged after the submission of the statement of defence. A bench of Justices Abhay S Oka and Ujjal Bhuyan was hearing a case in which the respondent had objected to the jurisdiction of the Arbitral Tribunal after submitting its statement of defence. The Arbitral Tribunal rejected the objection and subsequently passed an award. However, the District Judge set aside this award, and this decision...

Can Arbitral Awards Be Modified Under S. 34 & S.37 Of Arbitration Act? Supreme Court Refers To 5 Judge Bench

The Supreme Court today (January 23) referred to a 5 judge constitution bench the issue of whether Courts have the power to modify an arbitral award under S. 34 and 37 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996. The bench of CJI Sanjiv Khanna and Justices Sanjay Kumar and KV Viswanathan directed that while considering the scope of powers of the Court to modify arbitral awards, an examination of the scope and contours of S. 34 and 37 will also be needed. The Court would also need to see...

Arbitration Act | Courts' Jurisdiction Under Sections 34 and 37 Do Not Extend To Modifying Arbitral Award: Supreme Court Reiterates

Recently, the Supreme Court affirmed the principle laid down in National Highways Authority of India vs. M. Hakeem & Another that the jurisdiction of the Courts under Sections 34 and 37 of the Arbitration & Conciliation Act, 1996 (1996 Act) will not extend to modifying an arbitral award.The bench comprising Justices PS Narasimha and Manoj Misra was hearing the case dealing with the land acquisition compensation under the National Highways Act, 1956. Dissatisfied with the Arbitral...